Should Animal Abuse be Acceptable? - High Time To Reconsider the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
380 Views

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act – Reconsideration Needed

Recently there was worst incident which took place in Bhopal – A man from Bhopal just to gain followers threw a innocent dog off the bridge which is really not acceptable form humans. For gaining followers and fame this man tried to abuse the dog, is it acceptable? Absolutely No.

For a nation that claims adherence to “Ahimsa”, India’s treatment of its creatures deceives an ethical disappointment. Over the previous year alone, there have been reports of creatures being exposed to sexual maltreatment, corrosive assaults, thrown off form rooftops or being burnt alive and many more. A major factor that enables these kind of violence is an inept legal framework.

According to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 punishment for the most serious forms of animal violence is just a paltry fine of ₹50. Rs 50 Fine ? That’s it, for such a cruel offence ?

They were several amendment bills, social media campaigns and petitions before the Supreme Court seeking stricter punishment for animal abuse,but no strict punishment is implemented till now. It’s not only about this PCA act. If India wants to develop a meaningful animal rights regime, then several more aspects of legislation needs to be reconsidered.

An amendment act is required for the animals  which can grade the offences according to their severity, and specify punishments accordingly. The more severe offences must be made cognisable (in which police can investgate) and non-bailable. According to the current act at present most of the offences are non-cognisable (which means the police cannot investigate the offence or arrest the accused without the permission of a Magistrate) due this most of the culprits of animal abuse are freely roaming.

The PCA Act makes a plenty of exemptions which fundamentally weaken the assurances accessible to creatures. Despite the fact that Section 11 condemns a few types of creature brutality, whereas sub-area (3) cuts out special cases for animal husbandry strategies,

For example, dehorning, emasculation, nose-roping, and marketing – Act done by Many farmers, the horns of animals are being removed using hot irons, knives. Nose-roping includes piercing the animal’s nasal septa using a thick, blunt needle and the most important part – Branding which is traditionally done by applying a hot iron directly to the animal’s skin to put an identity mark on its body. These procedures causes tremendous physical and psychological pain to animals which are neglected.

The fact is PCA law does not provide any guidelines for the above procedures which further allows individuals to use cruel methods. 

What were the alternatives made for this?

On August 10, PETA  which represents People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, India went to Delhi High Court looking for legitimate guidelines for such animal husbandry techniques. The appeal recommends commanding the utilization of sedatives before maiming, and the substitution of unfeeling practices, for example, nose-roping with face halters and branding/marking with radio frequency identification. Further, rather than dehorning cattle, it suggested that farmers breed hornless cattle.

The exceptions in favour of animal husbandry practices surely need to be reconsidered as there are many alternatives that would prevent animals from undergoing such trauma.

The Definition of PCA Act is somewhere not understood clearly, as this law was enacted “to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals”. However,  this phrase cannot be seen anywhere in the act. This is crucial because in the absence of a clear statutory definition, we are leaving crucial questions of animal welfare to the subjective moral compass of judges. Given that the aim of law is to achieve a certain standard of objectivity, it is essential that the expression unnecessary pain or suffering be defined.

The Constitution requires all residents to “have sympathy for living animals”. We should look to ensure the most defenseless among us.

If the act by the Constitution is to hold any esteem, our animal welfare laws really need an upgrade.

The Constitution requires all occupants to “have compassion toward living creatures”We should look to ensure protection to the most vulnerable among us. If this promise of  the Constitution is to hold any esteem, our animal welfare law really needs to be looked into again and reconsidered.

A request to all the citizens please care for the animals, they have equal right to stay in this world as you or i have. Stop abusing animals. If you do not care for them, do not harm them.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Leave a Reply

You have successfully subscribed to the Pawsibilties

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

Pawsibilties will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.